I don’t think you’ll find many people left in our western world who prefer an old-fashioned regular camera over a digital one. While I can still appreciate the charm of fiddling with actual film and the thrill of finding out what your photos looked like all developed, digital photography is easier in just about every possible way. Thanks to The New York Times, I found a story from 2007 on the Kodak blog, detailing the ceation of the very first digital camera. In 1975. An old story, but fascinating nonetheless.
Yes, 1975. Like so many technologies out there that seemingly only recently conquered the market, digital photography’s history is actually a lot longer than you might think. Kind of like multitouch, really – while Apple may claim to have invented it, the technology is much, much older than just the iPhone (we’re talking early ’80s).
Anywho, the same applies to digital photography. Filmless photography became kind of a hot thing back in the late ’60s and ’70s, but it wasn’t until Bell Labs invented the charged-coupled device (CCD) in 1969 that we can really start talking of what we now know as digital photography. A company from Maine called Fairchild Semiconductor built the first commercial CCD in 1973, and this CCD would form the key ingredient in the first digital camera.
The camera was built at Kodak by Steve Sasson, now credited as the inventor of the digital camera. The device in question was supposed to be portable, but with 16 nickle-cadmium batteries, a tape recorder for data storage, and half a dozen circuit boards, it was anything but.
It had a lens that we took from a used parts bin from the Super 8 movie camera production line downstairs from our little lab on the second floor in Bldg 4. On the side of our portable contraption, we shoehorned in a portable digital cassette instrumentation recorder. Add to that 16 nickel cadmium batteries, a highly temperamental new type of CCD imaging area array, an a/d converter implementation stolen from a digital voltmeter application, several dozen digital and analog circuits all wired together on approximately half a dozen circuit boards, and you have our interpretation of what a portable all electronic still camera might look like.
It took nearly a year to build the device, but it was finally ready in December 1975. It sported a 0.01 megapixel resolution, and it took 23 seconds to commit the photograph to the tape. Obviously, the camera is only of so much use if you have a way to actually display the photos it takes. This was also taken care of by Sasson’s team: they built a custom playback device that could take the 100-line image, interpolate it to 400 lines, and display it on an NTSC television.
The two devices were demonstrated all throughout Kodak in 1976, leading to many interesting questions from the audience. “Why would anyone ever want to view his or her pictures on a TV? How would you store these images? What does an electronic photo album look like? When would this type of approach be available to the consumer?”
While Sasson and his team were “being crazy”, they realised full well that with time and technological improvements, digital photography could have a major impact on technology. The technical report describing the camera read: “The camera described in this report represents a first attempt demonstrating a photographic system which may, with improvements in technology, substantially impact the way pictures will be taken in the future.”
I love these stories.
Cool story, some of my dads friends remember working with Steve back in the day, being from the Rochester area (and still living nearby) its cool to see how many things originated from here that people use worldwide.
I always wonder what new technology will someday be commonplace.
There are so many things, such as nuclear fusion, non-rocket space launch (elevator, loop, etc.), super high capacity batteries, curing cancer, and many more things that I can’t imagine, that people say may never happen. But will they?
I like to think that we are past the point in history where all new technology will be somewhat explainable to people today (i.e. try explaining a computer to someone from 500 years ago). But maybe scientific knowledge is expanding so fast that the opposite is true – maybe we can not even begin to understand the technology of the future.
This is why I love science.
It still takes a decent digital camera to keep up with a 35mm in low/dim lighting.
My first digital was horrible at low light photos.
This may sound weird, but I have yet to find an inexpensive digital camera that beats my Sony Mavica under low lighting conditions.
I also actively buy records, but that’s another thing altogether…
The latest crop of full-frame 35mm digital SLR contains a few very impressive specimens, namely the Nikon D700 and D3s. Those cheesy APS-C sensor cameras cannot even remotely compete with a full-frame for light-gathering ability. It is a simple matter of area my friends.
I still use a Nikon F100 with Velvia 100/200 for its quality on nature shots. But I adore my D700 for pulling in some very low noise shots at ISO 3200. Give a proper DSLR a try, you may find yourself very surprised at what is possible.
I just wanted to follow up on my own post and say that I fully recognize that earlier poster’s were talking about low-cost cameras.
It is actually quite sad what has happened with the economics of photography and the cost that may be involved in creating great pictures with digital cameras. With a film camera, the camera was just a light box that could open and close a shutter and advance the film. Given a reasonably good lens (likely a prime) and just about any light box (aka camera body), an advanced amateur could produce extremely high quality photographs simply by using a good film. The only reason to get a higher-end body was if you needed some esoteric capabilities. A more expensive light box was almost entirely unlikely to provide notably better photographs of still subjects in simple lighting conditions even in the hands of a rank amateur.
With digital cameras, the cost structure is radically altered. The light box is now at the heart of producing the image record. The cost per shot is virtually free and the equipment is constantly improving in notable ways.
As a side note, regarding the cost of taking a photograph. I really don’t think of a shot as being free. Admittedly, storing bits on the CF card is “free”. But, if you are doing a good job being thoughtful about your composition, it really isn’t free. My time is expensive; I try to use it well.
Regarding the need to upgrade, I finally feel like at least a mini-plateau has been reached on the full-frame 35mm DSLR landscape. The need to upgrade has finally been reduced considerably for some users due to high-ISO capability at low-noise levels and reasonable resolutions.
>While I can still appreciate the charm of fiddling with actual film and the thrill of finding out what your photos looked like all developed, digital photography is easier in just about every possible way.
This maybe true for the usual snapshots, but it isn’t for real photography. Every good old-fashioned analog cameras can outperform todays high-priced DSLRs. You mix digital gimmicks with photography. It’s easier to some degree, but it’s far from better.
” Every good old-fashioned analog cameras can outperform todays high-priced DSLRs. You mix digital gimmicks with photography. It’s easier to some degree, but it’s far from better”
Resolution-wise? Incorrect. Depending on the film, 35mm film cameras get between 4 and 16 mega pixels of effective resolution. Last I checked Canon’s mid range has 18 megapixels.
I don’t know what “gimmicks” you are talking about, but it certainly is much easier to get correct exposure when I can interactively balance exposure, shadow, highlight and midtones, rather than relying an automatic processing in the film developer.
Edited 2010-08-30 13:35 UTC
There’s a simple rule for online discussions: Whenever someone talks about “real X”, it means “the way I do it”. It’s never a good sign for a reasonable discussion.
—
One thing that used to separate pro and amateur photographers was that the pros could spend many rolls of film per day if they so desired, while the amateurs generally had a much lower film usage. Letting us amateurs shoot many, many more pictures without ruining ourselves might be the best thing digital has done, in two ways: It makes it easier to get better at taking pictures, and it increases the chance of getting a few really good shots.
In other words – my D40 might be more expensive than a modest film SLR, and have lower image quality than a D700, but it’s more than good enough for any print I’ll ever make, and the film + developing cost to cover the amount of pictures I’ve taken with it makes it look like an absolute bargain.
Totally agreed. Pros can afford to take so many shots because:
alpha) They aren’t paying some for-profit processing center to develop their rolls.
beta) There are no second chances to capture the defining moment of a sporting event.
Point beta is where digital has really helped non-professionals, such as when shooting their children’s sporting events. I am very glad for this.
One thing that somewhat drives me crazy is when I get requests from folks to help them buy a camera the size of a pack of cards that can take decent photos at a dance club (at night). I rolls my eyes and try to find something that approximates their request as reasonably as is possible.
Another favorite of mine: When someone tries to tell me how their cellphone’s camera is 10MP and therefore is nearly equivalent to a DSLR with a full-frame sensor at 12MP and a prime lens.
Me: “The phone’s sensor is 1/800th the area of FF. This means that your phone cannot gather nearly enough light to produce decent photos. Also, your lens is pitiful.”
Them: “But it says it is a 10mp Zeiss.”
Me: /sigh